User talk:Aristotele1982

July 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ  16:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Patriarchy
Edits such as this one belong on the article talk page, not in the article proper. Favonian (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Patriarchy. Favonian (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Social science
I have started discussion on the talk page for Social science, proposing the removal of the "Neutral Point of View" template you added to it. Please respond there with any reasons you think it should stay, and if so, how you propose to fix what you see as a problem on the page. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

On social science
The preface of the page states that social science is a science in the general sense of science, that is a priori, predictable knowledge which social sciences are not. Philology for instance uses qualitative and quantitative data but is not science. Furthermore the discussion over the epistemic status of social sciences is still going on but, despite this, there is not even a word on this in the page. So, no I suggest not to remove the NPOV from it until further revisions are made Aristotele1982 (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis
Regarding this, do not do it, or anything like it, again. You've had enough warnings by now to know how Wikipedia works. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Many of your edits suggest you are not editing or unable to edit with a neutral point of view:      Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
Also, since you're editing in these areas, you should be aware of the discretionary sanctions related to them:  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Patriarchy
Greetings. You have made essentially the same vague complaints before as you, in July 2017 and December 2017, and were told both times that you needed sources to back up your claims. Repeating the same argument and repeatedly tagging the article is verging on disruptive, if not already over the line. Please use article talk pages for discussion of sources and policy, not for promoting your personal interpretation of the topic. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as talk:Patriarchy are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. If you want to air your prejudices please don't do it here.  We're trying to build an encyclopedia. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Patriarchy edits
Hi Aristotele1982. When you are reverted by another user, you need to discuss your edits rather than just reverting back, like you did in this edit. You are also dangerously close to running afoul of the three-revert rule—it is standard to block users for 24 hours if they make more than three reverts to one page within a 24 hour period. This is a bright-line rule which applies no matter whether other editors are also breaking the rules or not. Even if you do not surpass the three revert threshold, it is best to not make reversions unless consensus is already clear, otherwise you may be edit warring. Please don't make any further reversions to the article until there is agreement on the talk page. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
— Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This block is for your abuse of multiple accounts, not disruptive editing. ― Abelmoschus  Esculentus  13:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop adding your personal commentary to articles
No more WP:OR/Synthesis. Stop it. And when it comes to adding templates like Template:POV, they should actually be justified, not added based on your personal opinion. Read what Template:POV states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notice - Annual re-alert
 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance
Hi Aristotele1982, and thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest relating to CSMBR. You might like to read Conflict of interest for information about the relationship between Wikipedia and editors associated with organisations. I've moved the page you created to draft space, so it can now be found at Draft:Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance. I did this because the article does not have many reliable secondary sources demonstrating the notability of the subject. If you can add more sources to the article then you can submit it to Articles for Creation (using instructions at the bottom of the draft page), and this way an uninvolved, experienced editor can neutrally assess whether the topic and article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aristotele1982, You page has been moved to draft page as you have a conflict of interest of the affected page for such the article needs to go through Article for Creation process. Pls click the submit button for review. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

== Your submission at Articles for creation: Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance (June 16) ==  Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Centre for the Study of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Centre_for_the_Study_of_Medicine_and_the_Body_in_the_Renaissance Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Centre_for_the_Study_of_Medicine_and_the_Body_in_the_Renaissance reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:CSMBR - Print.png
Thanks for uploading File:CSMBR - Print.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 16:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:CSMBR - Logo mod.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CSMBR - Logo mod.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 16:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:CSMBR - Print.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CSMBR - Print.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CSMBR - Print.png
Thanks for uploading File:CSMBR - Print.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)